Congressional Record, Volume 163 Issue 49 (Tuesday, March 21, 2017)

[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 21, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H2252-H2259]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 372, COMPETITIVE HEALTH INSURANCE
REFORM ACT OF 2017

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 209 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

[[Page H2253]]

H. Res. 209

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 372) to
restore the application of the Federal antitrust laws to the
business of health insurance to protect competition and
consumers. All points of order against consideration of the
bill are waived. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now
printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print
115-8 shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended,
shall be considered as read. All points of order against
provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as
amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary;
and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for
1 hour.

{time} 1230

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only,
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.

general leave

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
to include any extraneous material on House Resolution 209, currently
under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stewart). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Today I am pleased to bring forward this rule on behalf of the Rules
Committee. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 372, the
Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act. The rule provides for 1 hour
of debate for the bill, equally divided between the chairman and
ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. The rule also provides for a
motion to recommit.
Yesterday, the Rules Committee had the opportunity to hear from
Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte and Congressman David
Cicilline on behalf of the Judiciary Committee.
I thank Chairman Goodlatte and the Judiciary Committee staff for
their work on this legislation. As a member of the Judiciary Committee,
I had the opportunity to review this legislation at both a committee
hearing and a markup.
We heard from several witnesses at the Judiciary Committee hearing,
including the bill's primary sponsor, Congressman Paul Gosar of
Arizona.
In addition to the bill's sponsor and the Judiciary Committee, I
would also like to recognize one of my colleagues from Georgia,
Representative Austin Scott, for his interest in this topic and
leadership on this legislation. Congressman Austin Scott of Georgia
testified before the Judiciary Committee on this bill and has worked
actively to highlight this issue.
The issue of competition in the health insurance marketplace is not a
new one, but it is one that deserves more attention. Legislation
similar to the Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act passed the House
under a Democrat-led Congress in 2010 and under a Republican Congress
in 2012.
Mr. Speaker, much of our attention on the floor this week is focused
on making health care more affordable and accessible to the American
people. The Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act is part of that
plan.
From shore to shore, we have seen and heard stories about the soaring
costs of health care and the health insurance markets that have been
hamstrung by ACA regulations. As a result, insurers have fled the
exchanges while consumer choice and access to quality care have
disappeared along with them.
Today, more than ever, we need to institute reforms that restore
options for Americans by encouraging healthy competition in the health
insurance market. The problem actually dates back to the 1940s, and the
Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act helps address a problem that
has increasingly demanded attention.
In 1944, Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court held, for the first time,
that insurance was part of interstate commerce and was, therefore,
subject to Federal antitrust laws. Congress responded a year later by
passing the McCarran-Ferguson Act, which established certain exemptions
from the Federal antitrust regulations for the business of insurance.
That law remains in place today, and reexamining it in the context of
our health insurance market has received bipartisan support.
The Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act would amend the 1945
McCarran-Ferguson Act to apply our three main antitrust laws--the
Clayton Act, the Sherman Act, and the FTC Act--to the health insurance
industry.
To be clear, this bill does not impose new or radical regulations
upon the health insurance industry. It merely applies longstanding
antitrust laws to the business of health insurance, laws that have
applied to the rest of the economy for decades. By restoring the
application of our competition and antitrust laws to the health
insurance industry, we strengthen the foundation for a competitive
health insurance market.
The high prices and lack of choices that patients find in health
insurance flow back from a lack of competition in the market and a
barrage of regulations. So it is past time that we reestablish a basis
for a system in which insurance providers compete for customers in a
patient-driven marketplace.
While we work to bring common sense back to health care, we also have
to look at the broad context of where the industry is and how it got
there. In that spirit, this bill recognizes the importance of open and
free competition across the economy, including the healthcare
marketplace. Part of the government's role is to guard the American
people rather than creating special interest exemptions that ultimately
work against the hardworking citizens. H.R. 372 establishes that there
is no basis for further exemption of the health insurance industry from
the Federal antitrust law.
Importantly, however, H.R. 372 also contains narrowly defined safe
harbors to protect historically procompetitive collaborative activities
that are unique to the business of insurance, including the collection
and distribution of historical loss data and the performance of
actuarial services that do not involve a restraint of trade.
The Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act is not a magic pill or a
silver bullet, but it is a key component of our broader plan to restore
competition and common sense to the healthcare marketplace.
The principles captured by this bill are part of our House Republican
Better Way plan and a part of our plan to address the harm done that
ObamaCare has brought on our healthcare system and those who depend on
it.
I look forward to the underlying legislation once again receiving
broad support from both sides of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) for yielding me
the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule today, one that
provides for consideration of H.R. 372, the Competitive Health
Insurance Reform Act of 2017, a good bill that I support.
Mr. Speaker, the Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act amends the
McCarran-Ferguson Act so that the health insurance companies would no
longer be exempt from Federal antitrust regulation.
Currently, unfortunately, most types of insurance, including property
or life insurance, are exempt from Federal antitrust regulations and
statutes. The McCarran-Ferguson Act makes it clear that the insurance
industry heretofore has been regulated only by States. Additionally,
the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission have
retained authority for antitrust enforcement involving mergers and
acquisitions of insurance companies, but not dominations of markets and
competition.
As a result of this exemption, the health insurance industry does not

[[Page H2254]]

have to share pricing information, and actually can currently
communicate with one another to fix prices. Now, that doesn't make
sense.
I firmly believe that the more transparency in our healthcare system,
the better off consumers will be. Repealing the health insurance
exemption of the McCarran-Ferguson Act may improve competition, but it
would almost also result in more transparency in health insurance. It
is something that we sorely need. So I intend to join many of my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle in supporting the underlying bill
because it increases transparency.
The reality is that this bill does nothing to replace the protections
of the Affordable Care Act. It doesn't even make a dent in addressing
the many problems created by the Republican healthcare legislation, the
American Health Care Act.
Mr. Speaker, so I don't want anybody listening to this to be
distracted by a bipartisan bill that we hope becomes law. In any way,
shape, or form, this bill does nothing when, in 2 days, we are
considering a bill that threatens the health care for 24 million
Americans, increases prices for Americans who are currently insured by
15 to 20 percent, and throws millions off of the rolls of the insured.
The Republican healthcare bill that is coming to the floor Thursday
will cause a huge disruption in coverage for millions of Americans. It
creates an entirely new entitlement program. It would throw 24 million
people who currently have insurance out of insurance. And for anybody
who still has insurance, their rates go up 15 to 20 percent.
How is that a good idea? It is not.
This bill today does nothing. Nothing. I don't even think the
advocates of it would say it does anything to address those increases
in costs for consumers or 24 million people losing their health care or
the creation of a brand-new costly entitlement program in a time of
record deficits.
For constituents--and we all represent people from our districts--for
people like Greg and Nikita, Coloradoans who have shared their stories
with me, the passage of the American Health Care Act, the Republican
healthcare bill, would devastate their lives.
Greg was diagnosed with a rare form of cancer in 2014, in his
midforties. After several surgeries, his doctors told him his condition
is inoperable and could only be treated chronically by medication. It
is a very expensive injection that has so far been successful, thank
goodness, at keeping the tumor from growing and allowing Greg to live
an ordinary life.
Now, Greg needs this shot every 3 weeks. It is thousands of dollars
each time. And despite working at least two jobs, it is not something
that Greg could afford to have--Greg would not have health care without
the Affordable Care Act. He would have to quit his jobs and become
destitute and go on Medicaid.
The Republicans are basically saying to people like Greg: We want you
to be lazy. We want you to quit your job so you could have health care.
We want you to live off the government dole of this brand-new
entitlement program that we created to hand you money rather than work
for yourself and pay for your own insurance.
That is the message the Republicans are sending to people like Greg
across the country.
Nikita lives in Boulder and has spent much of her life battling
endometriosis. In 2014, she was having trouble walking because of her
condition and she missed work for a few weeks. After the passage of the
Affordable Care Act, she was able to afford the surgery that she needed
to improve her mobility and manage her pain.
In her message to me, Nikita emphasized that affordable health care
is what allows her to work and to be a citizen that pays taxes and
contributes to society rather than somebody who is shut in at home,
living off the government dole like Republicans are trying to force her
to do with the new entitlement program that they are creating.
If Nikita didn't have the healthcare coverage she obtained through
the Accordable Care Act, she said that she would be on disability and
Medicaid, costing the government far more money and preventing her the
dignity of holding a job and working to support herself and paying
taxes.
Both Greg and Nikita expressed fear that the benefits they receive
under the Affordable Care Act would disappear if the Affordable Care
Act is dismantled in favor of this new Republican entitlement program
that encourages people not to work. The American Health Care Act
threatens to pull the rug out from so many of my constituents and
millions across the country while simultaneously raising rates by 15 to
20 percent for people who are currently insured and paying for their
own insurance.
Look, H.R. 372 is a fine bill. Republicans are using it as a talking
point, claiming that somehow it addresses costs in some meaningful way.
And given how complicated the healthcare system is and the critical
role that we all have to play in it and every little piece plays, it is
important to lay out the facts of the Republican plan, which H.R. 372
does nothing to address.
It is a fact fewer people will be covered under the Republican plan.
The Congressional Budget Office says 24 million people will lose their
healthcare coverage over the next decade.
It is a fact that middle-aged Americans will pay five times more in
premiums. The age tax is a big part of the Republican healthcare bill.
Americans ages 55 to 64 will see their cost increase by over $8,000.
Most of my constituents in that age group simply can't afford that
every year.
It is a fact that those currently enrolled in Medicaid programs are
at risk of losing their coverage. The Republicans' concern that
Medicaid expansion to the Affordable Care Act was coercive, they should
be equally concerned about the per capita cap in the Republican plan.
It is the flip side of the same coin.
Those are just some of the many troubling facts about the Republican
healthcare bill.
H.R. 372, removing the antitrust exemption, is a fine bill. It does
nothing to address any of those problems or change any of those facts
and figures that I cited as to why this bill doesn't fix health care.
In fact, frankly, this bill is a distraction from the real topic we
should be discussing--how to improve health care in this country. I
don't think we should improve it by giving tax cuts to millionaires and
billionaires, forcing people like Greg and Nikita not to work and to be
destitute in order to get health care and go on the government dole,
creating a brand-new entitlement program that States administer,
increasing the costs of insurance for people who are already insured by
15 to 20 percent.
Mr. Speaker, if those are the answers, what is the question? Is it
how to make health care cost more and how to have less people covered?
If that is the question, the Republican bill is a good answer.
That is not the question my constituents are asking me, and I don't
think it is a question their constituents are asking my Republican
colleagues.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott) to continue
discussing the rule before us about the McCarran-Ferguson repeal.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong
support of H.R. 372, the Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act of
2017, which would take a big step towards creating a more business- and
consumer-friendly insurance market that works for all Americans.
As I listened to the comments just before I stood up, I heard that
this is a fine bill. It is more than a fine bill. This is a good bill.
Let me tell you how I know it is a good bill--because, a few years ago,
both Nancy Pelosi and Mike Pence voted for it.
Now, what the Democrats don't want to tell you is that on February
24, 2010, less than a month before the Affordable Care Act was signed
into law, there was an agreement that allowing the insurance companies
to be exempt from the antitrust laws in the country was a problem.
So how is it that with a bill that passed 406 ``yes'' votes to 19
``no'' votes--when it came out of the dark rooms, the Affordable Care
Act was brought to the floor with the comments of: Well, you will have
to read it to find out what is in it.

[[Page H2255]]

Perhaps the Democrats should have read it to find out what wasn't in
it, because the leadership not only sold America out, they sold them
out. This bill passed 406-19. Yet, in the back rooms where they put the
Affordable Care Act together, they didn't include the provision.
While the Affordable Care Act certainly has played a major role in
the disruptions patients and providers have experienced, the decades-
old special exemption--which they voted to take away, and then the
leadership of the Democratic party gave it back to the insurance
industry--shielding insurers from Federal antitrust laws has eroded
confidence and competition in the marketplace. Fortunately, we have a
vehicle before us to walk back this special deal.
The legislation currently before the House would inject much-needed
competition into the health insurance market by eliminating the
antitrust exemptions for health and dental insurers, leveling the
playing field and giving consumers and providers more leverage and
better options. There are very few antitrust exemptions in our country,
and for good reason.
This exemption is not only damaging to the consumer when they
purchase health insurance, but it damages the healthcare providers,
further limiting consumers' access to services.
The dominance of the market that large insurers have enjoyed has
forced many providers to move, close, merge, or sell to larger regional
hospitals, impacting parties across the industry. In the 24 counties of
Georgia that I represent, patients have few healthcare choices left
that impacts their ability to receive quality care and negotiate a
policy that meets their unique needs.
Echoing that sentiment, I think anyone who has skin in the game will
tell you that a majority of the problems in the healthcare marketplace
trace their roots back to a lack of competition.

{time} 1245

Yet, the Democrats left the insurance industry exempt from the
antitrust laws once again when they passed the Affordable Care Act.
While insurance companies have the power to negotiate, just as they
proved in the negotiations with the Democrats on the Affordable Care
Act, pharmacies, physicians, and hospitals are left without a seat at
the table. When the insurance companies get to determine who is and
isn't able to provide healthcare services, the insurer-provider
relationship is closer to extortion than negotiation.
So why do we allow the health insurance industry that controls,
through their contracts, who your doctor is, who your pharmacist is,
which medicine you can get, and which hospital you can go to, to be
exempt from the antitrust laws of the country? How could the Democrats
do that to you in the Affordable Care Act?
By definition, health care and health insurance are not the same
thing, but when one industry, one insurance company controls such
significant portions of the cash flow of all of the providers in a
region, no provider can stay in business without a contract with that
carrier; therefore, the insurance company gets to determine who is and
who is not able to provide health care.
Removing this antitrust exemption for health insurers means one more
option for consumers, increased competition between providers, and
greater certainty for insurers when it comes to hammering out policies
and working for consumers across the spectrum. It should have been done
long ago, but the Democrats turned their back on the American public
and, again, granted the health insurance industry an exemption from the
antitrust laws of the country.
While this is certainly not an end-all, be-all to reforming our
broken and dysfunctional healthcare system, it is a commonsense step
towards untangling the mess our health insurance marketplace has
become.
I also think it noteworthy to mention, again, February 24, 2010, the
Health Insurance Industry Fair Competition Act passed the House with a
vote 406-19 only 1 month prior to the Affordable Care Act being signed
into law. And yet, the American citizens, once again, were sold out by
the Democratic Party.
I strongly believe this piece of legislation currently before the
House lays a firm foundation in our work to fulfill our promise to fix
our badly broken healthcare system. Today we have the opportunity to
provide relief to consumers and providers alike, and I urge my
colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 372, the Competitive Health
Insurance Reform Act of 2017.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Two weeks ago, the Republicans pushed ahead with their healthcare
bill, despite not knowing the impact of the legislation. A week later,
the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office announced that the bill
would take health insurance away from 24 million people and increase
costs by 15 to 20 percent for those who currently have insurance.
Mr. Speaker, late last night the Republicans introduced a major
manager's amendment that changes the bill, frankly.
Mr. Speaker, just as it was irresponsible to move forward without
knowing the full effects of the original bill, it is completely
reckless to even know whether this manager's amendment makes it better
or worse and the impact that it has on health care for American
families. It is reckless to consider and vote on their amended bill
before the Congressional Budget Office even says how much it costs, or
how much it will increase insurance by, or whether it throws people off
insurance rolls.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule that would require a CBO cost estimate that
analyzes the impact of any legislation amending or repealing the
Affordable Care Act, as well as the impact of any manager's amendment
to that legislation to be made publicly available before the bill may
be considered on the House floor.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 4 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth), the ranking member
on the Committee on the Budget, to discuss our proposal.
Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.
The one question I think many Americans who follow this debate would
be asking now is: What is the rush? What is the rush?
For 7 years now, our Republican colleagues have consistently said we
are going to repeal the Affordable Care Act. More than 60 votes have
been taken in this body to repeal the Affordable Care Act. We kept
asking: If you are going to repeal it, what are you going to replace it
with? You can't just say, do away with it, and leave millions and
millions of Americans in the lurch.
So finally, 2 weeks ago yesterday, we have gotten their answer.
TrumpCare, RyanCare, the American Health Care Act, call it what you
will, we finally got an answer.
What has happened since those 2 weeks? We had no hearings on this
bill. We had quick markups. They lasted a long time, but we had--the
bill was introduced Monday night--markups in the Energy and Commerce
Committee and the Ways and Means Committee on Wednesday. And this was
on just a steamroller to try to get this accomplished before anybody
knew what was in it.
Now, the CBO report from last week came out indicating things that I
think most Americans would be frightened by. 24 million Americans lose
their coverage over 10 years; but, more significantly than that, 21
million lose their coverage within 3 years; 14 million next year.
Consider that. All of the gains in coverage made under the Affordable
Care Act done away with in 3 years. Premiums going up for Americans.
I can't believe Speaker Ryan tried to put lipstick on a pig. He said
he thought the CBO report was really encouraging because, 10 years from
now, premiums would be 10 percent lower. The only way they are 10
percent lower is because, under the TrumpCare, older Americans, 50 and
older, in the individual market get priced out of the market with huge
premium increases.

[[Page H2256]]

So they are gone. Only younger and healthier people are in there. Yes,
premiums would be lower for them. Other people are out of business.
So that report comes out, causing a great deal of consternation on
the part of the sponsors and supporters. They bring it, schedule it to
come to the floor on Thursday, March 23, because they think that is
cute because that is the seventh anniversary of the passage of the
Affordable Care Act. But, again, no hearings, no real analysis; and
what is more important, no CBO revised report on the changes that were
introduced late last night.
This is outrageous. And I love to hear my Republican colleagues try
to portray the process under which the Affordable Care Act was drafted
and considered with some kind of nighttime secretive deal. They weren't
here, most of them. I was.
I was on the Ways and Means Committee, one of the drafting
committees. Fourteen months we worked on that legislation--14 months.
Seventy-nine hearings in the Congress on that legislation. Hours and
hours and hours of markups on that legislation. Cost estimates
throughout the process. I can't imagine a more exhaustive and public
process than we went through for the Affordable Care Act.
And here, 2 weeks from introduction to proposed passage, we have no
real public discussion of a piece of legislation that directly affects
the lives and probably, unfortunately, the deaths of many, many
Americans.
So, Mr. Speaker, we don't need to rush to judgment. I don't think the
American people are waiting around saying: I don't need to know any
more; ObamaCare is so bad, and my life is so bad that I can't wait
another 2 weeks to find out what this really would do to me and my
family. No, we need to give more time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Kentucky has
expired.
Mr. POLIS. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.
Mr. YARMUTH. We don't need to do this this Thursday without a full
rendering of the cost of the new manager's amendment to TrumpCare. We
suspect, although we don't know, that it is going to look even bleaker;
that more people will lose their coverage; that costs and rates will be
higher. But shouldn't we understand exactly what those statistics are,
what those projections are before we vote on something that is so
significant for tens of millions of Americans?
So, Mr. Speaker, I think it is entirely appropriate that we require
that a new CBO report be done on the manager's amendment before we vote
on something that, again, means life and death to American families.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am awaiting the graphic presentation about some of
what is at stake in this debate about the Affordable Care Act, the
fundamental debate about whether we try to fix health care in this
country, make insurance cost less, or whether we move backwards under
this Republican healthcare proposal.
The Republican healthcare proposal would create an entirely new
entitlement program administered by the States. In creating this
program, it would throw 24 million people who have healthcare insurance
today off of the insurance rolls. They would become uninsured
Americans.
It would add an age tax on older Americans. It would also increase
the cost of health care for people who have health care today and pay
for it, by 15 to 20 percent. Now, they wouldn't be getting more for
that 15 to 20 percent.
Mr. Speaker, if you can believe it, they would actually be getting
less insurance for that 15 to 20 percent because many of the
requirements that insurance has to have are rolled back, the Federal
protections under this Republican healthcare bill.
Somehow, at the same time it does all these things, the same time it
costs 24 million Americans their insurance, the same time it increases
rates by 15 to 20 percent--and, by the way, these figures are from the
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the head of which was
appointed by Republicans.
These are solid predictions that are done by people who were
appointed by Republicans. We are not citing any outside group or
naysayers who don't like the bill. These are the objective
Congressional Budget Office numbers that we are citing here in their
entirety.
So, in addition to costing people 15 to 20 percent more, this bill
also, for reasons unknown, gives an enormous multibillion-dollar tax
break to millionaires and billionaires in New York and California. That
is where most of them live. Now, there are a few in other places, of
course, too.
But it is just unclear why, at the same time Republicans are trying
to change the healthcare law, they want to go back to giving enormous
tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans. We are not even talking the
wealthiest 1 percent. We are talking, like, one-tenth of a percent who
are going to see the bulk of the benefit from these tax cuts, at the
same time that health care is being taken away from 24 million people
who have insurance today, and at the same time those who are fortunate
enough to be able to continue to have it will have to pay 15 to 20
percent more.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, this bill is so unpopular. If you are going
to go through the trouble of creating an entirely new entitlement
program, at least do it in a way where it actually helps people afford
coverage versus hurts their ability to afford coverage.

Now, I gave the example in my remarks of Greg, and that is far from
unique because people today, who rely on the subsidies to be able to
get health insurance within the Affordable Care Act, if the Republican
bill passes, would have to quit their jobs and rely on Medicaid
instead, or they would have to take a lower-wage job. Instead of
earning $40,000 or $50,000 a year, they would have to quit that job and
try to take a minimum-wage job so they could qualify for Medicaid.
Essentially, this Republican healthcare bill is telling Americans,
you need to be lazy and not work if you want health care because, if
you want to work a job, we are going to take it away. We are only going
to provide it if you quit your job or take a minimum-wage job under
Medicaid.
So that is not the message or the incentives that we want to send to
the American people. One of the great aspects of the Affordable Care
Act is it actually, for the first time, provided an incentive for
people to get increases in their wages, to get better jobs, to work
additional hours.
Before the Affordable Care Act, we were locked into a scenario where
people who were on Medicaid lost their Medicaid benefits if they got a
raise at work, depending on the size of their family. It could have
been a raise from, let's say, $14 an hour to $16 an hour. They couldn't
work overtime. They couldn't work a second job, as so many people do to
escape from poverty because they would lose their health care.
The Affordable Care Act said: You know what? We are going to allow
you and encourage you to work that second job, to get a raise and
support your health care as you make your way out of poverty into the
middle class. What a great idea.
The Republican proposal creates a brand new entitlement program, but
rolls back those affordability protections that help people work their
way out of poverty, and leaves no alternative for people like Nikita
and Greg, other than you have to quit your job or work a minimum-wage
job because, otherwise, we are going to take your health care away from
you.

{time} 1300

That is the reason that the projections came back--no surprise--that
24 million people will lose their healthcare insurance. It is the
reason that healthcare insurance rates will increase 15 to 20 percent.
We don't know the reason that they are also giving a tax cut to
billionaires in the same bill. We know they want to do that, but they
should do that in a tax bill. There is an effort at tax reform. I think
they are talking about giving an additional tax cut to billionaires in
that bill. That will be debated separately. But it is unclear how--or
it is more than unclear as to why it would help make health care more
affordable to give a tax cut to billionaires. It just doesn't make any
sense. Let's debate that under a different bill.

[[Page H2257]]

I am happy to do that. As part of a broader tax proposal, we will see
what else is in it. We know Republicans want to do that, but they
shouldn't do that under the guise of health care.
So, again, Mr. Speaker, what you have here in this Republican bill,
which this current bill does nothing to change--and this bill will
pass, it has passed before, and we hope the Senate acts on it to remove
the antitrust exemption. This bill does nothing to change the facts on
the ground that the Republican healthcare bill that creates a brand new
entitlement program would make Americans pay more for less, 24 million
people would lose their insurance, there is an age tax on older
Americans, guts Medicaid, huge tax cuts for millionaires and
billionaires, increases of 15 to 20 percent for Americans who are lucky
enough to retain their insurance, and discourages work and encourages
people to be lazy at home to get health care.
It is the opposite of what we want to do. It is contrary to the
American work ethic, and it is contrary to all incentives around cost
containment. I hope--I really hope, Mr. Speaker--that the House defeats
this awful bill to replace the Affordable Care Act, even as we pass
some of these commonsense bipartisan measures like the one before us
today that, around the edges, could potentially affect antitrust within
insurance companies.
Mr. Speaker, the bill under consideration today is a commonsense
piece of legislation. It has passed the House before. Ultimately,
however, it distracts from the elephant in the room. The American
Health Care Act is the Republican bill to roll back and change the
Affordable Care Act and create a brand new entitlement program while
increasing the insurance rates for American families, providing tax
cuts to billionaires, and throwing 24 million people off of the
insurance rolls.
My colleagues across the aisle had 7 years to work with us to improve
the Affordable Care Act, but they refused to work with us to make
health care more affordable and to expand coverage. Instead, they have
drafted a bill that does the exact opposite. No wonder we were unable
to find common ground when our goals were different.
The goals of myself and Democrats have always been to reduce costs
and expand coverage. Reading into what the Republican goals must be if
this bill meets them, it seems like they are working to decrease
coverage and increase costs--the opposite of what we are working for.
How will my colleagues look into the eyes of a former veteran or a
small-business owner or a middle class family or my constituents like
Greg or Nikita and somehow tell them that they would be better off
under a plan that forces them to quit their jobs and become destitute?
How will Republicans defend the vote to senior citizens when the age
tax in this bill will force most seniors to pay premiums five times
higher than what others pay for healthcare coverage? What will my
colleagues say to 24 million people who lose healthcare coverage
entirely under this bill?
The Republican healthcare bill that this body will consider on
Thursday will do extraordinary damage to the healthcare system and
leave millions of Americans guessing as to how much healthcare costs
will cost and what will be covered. The American healthcare bill
threatens to roll back important protections in coverage gains
delivered by the ACA, and discussion of anything else at this point is
a diversionary tactic, plain and simple.
Mr. Speaker, let's defeat the previous question and figure out how
much this mysterious manager's amendment even changes the bill for
better or worse. My colleague, Mr. Yarmuth, made a very compelling
argument about how we need to know the actual costs and benefits of any
bill we vote on; yet, this body is being forced to vote blind on a
manager's amendment that we saw for the first time today and could even
change by tomorrow, and we won't even know how it affects the costs of
this bill or how it affects the lives of Americans who have health care
today or aspire to it.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to defeat the previous
question and vote ``no'' on the rule, to vote ``yes'' on this
commonsense bill to modify our antitrust statutes which Democrats and
Republicans have supported overwhelmingly in the past, but never, not
once, to take our eye away from the ball of trying to decrease costs
rather than increase costs and trying to expand coverage rather than
retract coverage.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
I would just like to remind those from the House that if you do
defeat this rule, you will not vote on this commonsense piece of
legislation. So let's at least put the correct procedural order out
there.
We need to vote ``yes'' on this rule and get on to the underlying
piece of legislation, which is a piece that has passed this House not
only unanimously by voice vote in the Republican Congress but also with
an overwhelming vote just recently in the Democratic administration as
well. So we are moving forward on this.
I think what is interesting here, and what I have worked on, and we
are going to have a lot of discussion on for the next 2 days is
repealing and replacing ObamaCare. I think it was interesting that my
friend--we share many a night and day in the Rules Committee, we share
different opinions, but he made mention of the elephant in the room. I
will just make mention of the donkey in the room.

It is amazing to me now that we are actually concerned about people
losing health care. We are actually concerned about prices going up. We
are actually concerned about these issues that have been going on for 7
years. We are having an $800 billion tax because we have removed the
taxes and impediments of ObamaCare. We are actually--instead of
mandating the folks that they buy insurance that they can't afford and
can't use, we are actually getting a marketplace that will actually
give them better choices and results.
I think the interesting part here is not knowing the cost and
benefits. Good gracious. All we have to do is look back over the last 7
years, Mr. Speaker. When we understand what is going on, let's also, as
we throw out the discussion--it was made in comment by my friend, 7
years to fix. You can't fix broken in this regard. When he goes about
it traditionally wrong, it is not fixing. When you take away the
markets, when you take away the individual market, and when you are
taking away the very incentives that actually are the underpinnings of
our health care to enlarge and grow, if your goals were to reduce and
expand, then you failed miserably. You have not reduced costs, they
have gone up. You have not expanded choices, they have gone down.
I have listened to it about as much as I can right now. We are going
to have the next 2 days to give people health. It is why we are over
here for the majority speaking because of the failure of the ACA in
ObamaCare. When we understand that, then we can look at pieces of
legislation like the Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act that
should have been part of this a long time ago. Yet, we choose to begin
discussions about a failure. It is about a failure.
Choose the status quo. Squint your eyes, look real hard, it is not
getting worse, it is really okay, just help us tweak it, help it get
better.
It is not getting any better. In fact, any insurance company is on a
death spiral. ObamaCare is failing. Some of the CBO estimates about
increased costs 10 years out are based on ObamaCare pricing. There
wouldn't even be an ObamaCare plan in 10 years because it won't be
there.
So we will have these arguments. We will have these discussions. But
if you want to move forward a commonsense piece of legislation, if you
want to move forward a bipartisan piece of legislation, if you want one
that actually the American people sent us here to do to actually make
things better, then vote ``yes'' on the rule and vote ``yes'' on the
underlying bill because that is why we are here--real solutions from a
real majority that will answer the questions and then gladly defend it
to an American people who are tired of being told about and talked
about and taking things away because we didn't read it to know what was
in it. That is why, because you couldn't know what was in it.
Now we are going to tell you what is in it, and we are going to put
back a

[[Page H2258]]

marketplace that actually works for Americans. When we do that, we will
gladly put the market back there where they can actually have a plan
they can afford and actually use. When we understand that, the health
care and the plan we put forward will be one that works for the
American people, not against them.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 209 Offered by Mr. Polis

At the end of the resolution, add the following new
section:
Sec. 2. In rule XXI add the following new clause:
13. (a) It shall not be in order to consider a measure or
matter proposing to repeal or amend the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act (PL 111-148) and the Health Care and
Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010 (PL 111-
152), or part thereof, in the House or in the Committee of
the Whole House on the state of the Union unless an easily
searchable electronic estimate and comparison prepared by the
Director of the Congressional Budget Office is made available
on a publicly available website of the House.
(b) It shall not be in order to consider a measure or
matter proposing to repeal or amend the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act (PL 111-148) and the Health Care and
Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010 (PL 111-
152), or part thereof, in the House or in the Committee of
the Whole House on the state of the Union, that is called up
pursuant to a rule or order that makes a manager's amendment
in order or considers such an amendment to be adopted, unless
an easily searchable updated electronic estimate and
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional
Budget Office reflecting such amendment is made available on
a publicly available website of the House.
(c) It shall not be in order to consider a rule or order
that waives the application of paragraphs (a) or (b).
____

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Graves of Louisiana). The question is on
ordering the previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by
5-minute votes on adopting the resolution, if ordered, and suspending
the rules and passing H.R. 1353.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 231,
nays 185, not voting 13, as follows:

[Roll No. 176]

YEAS--231

Abraham
Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Guthrie
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin

NAYS--185

[[Page H2259]]

Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--13

Allen
Beyer
Deutch
Emmer
Fortenberry
Lewis (GA)
Marchant
Payne
Rush
Sinema
Slaughter
Thompson (MS)
Tsongas

{time} 1335

Mr. COHEN changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. WITTMAN changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 176.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 234,
noes 182, not voting 13, as follows:

[Roll No. 177]

AYES--234

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crist
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin

NOES--182

Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--13

Beyer
Deutch
Fortenberry
Lewis (GA)
Marchant
Norcross
Payne
Rush
Schweikert
Sinema
Slaughter
Thompson (MS)
Tsongas

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Huizenga) (during the vote). There are 2
minutes remaining.

{time} 1342

So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________